Las Vegas Sun

January 31, 2015

Currently: 49° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


Catholic bishops cry wolf

When the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was a “tragic day for marriage and our nation.” But the bishops go further, arguing that when the state legalizes same-sex civil marriage, “conflict results on a massive scale between the law and religious institutions and families. ... Religious liberty is then threatened.”

The bishops are equally alarmist about what they see as the threat to religious freedom posed by the Obama administration’s requirement that employee health plans — including those at religious colleges and hospitals — include contraception services. On Tuesday, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, the bishops’ spokesman on religious freedom, joined other religious leaders in warning that the mandate “continues to breach universal principles affirmed and protected by the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws.”

These indictments are excessive. Neither progress toward same-sex marriage nor the contraceptive mandate threatens religious liberty.

Even the bishops don’t argue that legalization of same-sex civil marriage interferes with the church’s decision about whom it will marry in a religious ceremony. Instead, they suggest that the church’s freedom might be compromised in other ways: It might be forced to employ individuals in same-sex civil marriages or provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples or be excluded from government benefits for opposing same-sex marriage. They also wonder if religious preachments against same-sex marriage might be punished as hate speech.

The last objection is just silly; no preacher is going to be imprisoned for arguing that “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” As for the others, the Roman Catholic Church can’t be required to ordain to the priesthood people in same-sex marriages — or opposite-sex marriages, for that matter — any more than it can be forced to ordain women despite laws against sex discrimination. On the other hand, if a Catholic university or hospital employs and serves non-Catholics, requiring it to recognize the civil (not religious) marriages of same-sex couples is not a violation of religious freedom any more than is requiring such institutions to comply with other civil laws.

Likewise, the health insurance rules draw a distinction between churches and other houses of worship, which are totally exempt from the contraceptive mandate, and religiously affiliated schools and charities that serve and employ people of all faiths. Even then, the administration has taken pains to spare the latter from directly paying for contraceptive services. Instead, employees will receive contraception coverage from an insurance company or, if the employer is self-insured, from a third-party administrator.

That’s a fair concession, but it’s not enough for Lori and the other religious leaders; they want the government to provide an exemption for institutions and individuals with religious objections to “enabling access” to contraceptives. That’s a loose standard that, if taken to its logical extreme, would allow employers to dock their employees’ pay in the amount of what it would cost them to purchase contraceptives.

The bishops also go too far in arguing that there should be an exemption for individual employers with religious objections to contraception. Unfortunately, this notion has received some support from federal judges. Last week, a federal appeals court in Denver ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, a “biblically founded” chain of craft stores with 13,000 full-time employees eligible for health insurance.

The appeals court treated seriously the notion that the company was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that allows a “person” — not a company — to disobey a generally applicable law if it substantially burdens the free exercise of that individual’s religion. The government can force compliance, however, if the law serves a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The health care law and the rules implementing it easily pass those tests.

Catholic bishops and other religious leaders should cry foul when the civil authorities violate freedom of conscience. In these cases, however, they are crying wolf.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. No... Catholic bishops are crying...period over the Government intrusion into religious freedoms. As is God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit and a host, too numerous to mention, of ALL religious believers.

    Carmine D

  2. Where is this so-called "intrusion" into religious liberty? Has any one suggested that catholic priests MUST officiate at same-sex marriages? That catholic churches MUST allow same-sex marriages on their property?

    Remember: the second amendment bars Federal laws "...respecting an establishment of religion..."

    That means more than laws BARRING religion or religious practices, it also means laws SUPPORTING them. A good argument can be made that the second amendment actually forbids Federal government recognition of ANY religious marriage, that it may recognize ONLY secular marriages. And, of course, the government has the right to define just what constitutes a secular marriage, so long as that definition includes NO overtly religious principals. Conservatives: You cannot pick and choose - you either support the Constitution, ALL of it, or you don't. Don't like parts of it? Work to change those parts. Until you actually succeed, however, LIVE WITH IT!

    As for the other "major" argument used to try to defend DOMA - Tradition. It was only 123 years ago this September that the US Government forced the LDS Church to change its religious practices and to renounce polygamy. All four of my grandparents and at least two of my uncles lived in a US that allowed polygamy within its territory. Tradition?? WHAT tradition?

  3. By law, all Catholic institutions MUST provide to employees free of charge prescription drugs and medications for abortion and birth control.

    Carmine D